MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1589106868 · doi:10.1109/dcc.1998.672310

A memory-efficient adaptive Huffman coding algorithm for very large sets of symbols

2002· article· en· W1589106868 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuffman codingAlgorithmComputer scienceShannon–Fano codingPrefix codeDecoding methodsCanonical Huffman codeCoding (social sciences)Variable-length codeTheoretical computer scienceData compressionMathematicsBlock codeCode rateConcatenated error correction codeSystematic code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. The problem of computing the minimum redundancy codes as we observe symbols one by one has received a lot of attention. However, existing algorithms implicitly assumes that either we have a small alphabet or that we have an arbitrary amount of memory at our disposal for the creation of a coding tree. In real life applications one may need to encode symbols coming from a much larger alphabet, for e.g. coding integers. We introduce a new algorithm for adaptive Huffman coding, called algorithm M, that uses space proportional to the number of frequency classes. The algorithm uses a tree with leaves that represent sets of symbols with the same frequency, rather than individual symbols. The code for each symbol is therefore composed of a prefix (specifying the set, or the leaf of the tree) and a suffix (specifying the symbol within the set of same-frequency symbols). The algorithm uses only two operations to remain as close as possible to the optimal: set migration and rebalancing. We analyze the computational complexity of algorithm M, and point to its advantages in terms of low memory complexity and fast decoding. Comparative experiments were performed with algorithm M on the Calgary corpus, with static Huffman coding as well as with another adaptive Huffman coding algorithms, algorithm /spl Lambda/ of Vitter. Experiments show that M performs comparably or better than the other algorithms but requires much less memory. Finally, we present an improved algorithm, M/sup +/, for non-stationary data, which models the distribution of the data in a fixed-size window in the data sequence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207